Discussion:
No Reformation
(too old to reply)
Alex Milman
2017-12-22 20:53:10 UTC
Permalink
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
pyotr filipivich
2017-12-22 22:27:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
Define "reformation".
--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait,
several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.
Alex Milman
2017-12-23 01:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by pyotr filipivich
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
Define "reformation".
It is "Reformation" (as a name of a specific event) and you can find definition in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation or elsewhere.


No Protestants of any type, Lutherans or Calvinists. No English Reformation either (or this may be allowed because it did not play a significant role on a continent).
Rich Rostrom
2018-01-06 14:46:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
No Protestants of any type, Lutherans or Calvinists.
No English Reformation either (or this may be
allowed because it did not play a significant role
on a continent).
Oh but it did - Protestant England supported the
Protestant Dutch rebels against Spain. Yes, there
were political reasons for this as well, but the
religious element was not insignificant.

Also, the "Auld Alliance" of France and Scotland
withered after Scotland became Protestant.


In any case, the Reformation had multiple roots
and effects.

1) National resentment against ecclesiastical
domination by Rome. This was the primary driver
of the English Reformation, and was important
in Germany and Scandinavia as well.

2) Powerfully argued dissent from Catholic dogma
and practice by the "Reformed" (Calvinist) movement,
which resulted in complete transformation of
religious practice in much of Europe (abolition of
priesthood and episcopacy, vernacular services,
removal of all church art, relics, etc.).

3) Notorious corruption of Roman hierarchy and of
hierarchy, priests, and monasteries generally. This
encouraged breaking with Rome even by theological
moderates, and AIUI to substantial "house-cleaning"
by the Church during the Counter-Reformation.

4) Resentment of financial demands of Rome on the
rest of the Church. This tied into 3) because the
rest of Europe resented paying for the luxuries of
the debauched Curia; and even for genuine religious
works such as St Peter's Cathedral. Leo X was
apparently sincerely devout, but spent lavishly on
St Peter's and patronage of artists, musicians, and
scholars, and other personal pleasures. Thus he
needed money and encouraged the sale of indulgences,
offending Luther. This of course ties into 1) -
princes and ecclesiastical nationalists wanted to
keep the money at home.

ISTM that these forces cannot be contained indefinitely.
If there is no "Reformation" in the 1500s, there will
be other movements in later years. As noted in 3) above,
the Protestant Reformation attack on the Church caused
some house-cleaning within the Church.

Nationalism could lead to multiple breakway national
churches: a Gallican Church in France, for example.

Random knock-on: the Teutonic Order does not secularize,
or does so much later. OTL, the Hochmeister at the time
was a Hohenzollern scion, so Prussia became a Hohenzollern
realm and later was united with Brandenburg. The TO had
earlier chosen a Wettin Hochmeister (who died fairly young,
before the Reformation broke out). They might chose another
Wettin next, or a Wittelsbach, or even a Habsburg,

Another knock-on: the ecclesiastical states of northern
Germany will last longer (AB of Magdeburg, for instance).
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
pyotr filipivich
2018-03-21 03:46:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Post by pyotr filipivich
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
Define "reformation".
It is "Reformation" (as a name of a specific event) and you can find definition in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation or elsewhere.
There were three "reformations" which came out of the 1400's. One
lead to the Council of Trent and the founding of the Order of Jesus.
Two lead to schisms, with the moderate branch removing practices for
which it found no scriptural support (the Lutherans and the high
church Anglicans, et sequelia), the radical branch which rejected
everything and only restored that which the individual preacher could
find supported in scripture: John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli
Post by Alex Milman
No Protestants of any type, Lutherans or Calvinists. No English Reformation either (or this may be allowed because it did not play a significant role on a continent).
The problems is, The Reformation was not a monolithic event,
springing forth full formed in 1517. Luther was not the first
catholic theologian to raise questions about church practices (nor the
last). Much of what had happened in the past had been as much a
result of the personalities of the "theologian" and that of the local
Bishop. E.G. the theology of Peter Waldo and Francis of Assisi is not
all that different, but Francis got papal approval, and the
Wadlensians got suppressed.
So, first off, you are going to have to have an environment
wherein the Roman hierarchy will respond to Luther's nintyfive thesis
by allowing that the Theology of Indulgences was proper, the current
implementation was suffering from "exuberance" on the part of the
local preachers.
IOW: many of the reforms that Luther preached would be recognized
as valid and implemented by the hierarchy.
As for the rest - the Calvinist, Wigglier's and other radicals -
they would not have had as much support - at least not from Luther and
"Lutheran" Princes.
--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait,
several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.
Alex Milman
2018-03-21 15:45:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by pyotr filipivich
Post by Alex Milman
Post by pyotr filipivich
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
Define "reformation".
It is "Reformation" (as a name of a specific event) and you can find definition in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation or elsewhere.
There were three "reformations" which came out of the 1400's. One
lead to the Council of Trent and the founding of the Order of Jesus.
Two lead to schisms, with the moderate branch removing practices for
which it found no scriptural support (the Lutherans and the high
church Anglicans, et sequelia), the radical branch which rejected
everything and only restored that which the individual preacher could
find supported in scripture: John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli
Post by Alex Milman
No Protestants of any type, Lutherans or Calvinists. No English Reformation either (or this may be allowed because it did not play a significant role on a continent).
The problems is, The Reformation was not a monolithic event,
springing forth full formed in 1517. Luther was not the first
catholic theologian to raise questions about church practices (nor the
last). Much of what had happened in the past had been as much a
result of the personalities of the "theologian" and that of the local
Bishop. E.G. the theology of Peter Waldo and Francis of Assisi is not
all that different, but Francis got papal approval, and the
Wadlensians got suppressed.
So, first off, you are going to have to have an environment
wherein the Roman hierarchy will respond to Luther's nintyfive thesis
by allowing that the Theology of Indulgences was proper, the current
implementation was suffering from "exuberance" on the part of the
local preachers.
IOW: many of the reforms that Luther preached would be recognized
as valid and implemented by the hierarchy.
As for the rest - the Calvinist, Wigglier's and other radicals -
they would not have had as much support - at least not from Luther and
"Lutheran" Princes.
They may not have that much support among the Lutheran princes of Germany but the French Protestants had been predominantly Calvinists and they managed to drag France into the Wars of Religion which lasted few decades.

However, the question was not about about the doctrinal nuances and when and how they did happen. It is about the absence of the split in the Catholic Church. The Pope is a head of it, the Church hierarchy is intact and so is the Church property. Theological changes and the rituals are irrelevant to this question.
Rich Rostrom
2018-03-23 07:02:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
However, the question was not about about the
doctrinal nuances and when and how they did happen.
It is about the absence of the split in the Catholic
Church. The Pope is a head of it, the Church
hierarchy is intact and so is the Church property.
Theological changes and the rituals are irrelevant
to this question.
But they are the _reasons_ for such splits.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Alex Milman
2018-03-23 16:50:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
However, the question was not about about the
doctrinal nuances and when and how they did happen.
It is about the absence of the split in the Catholic
Church. The Pope is a head of it, the Church
hierarchy is intact and so is the Church property.
Theological changes and the rituals are irrelevant
to this question.
But they are the _reasons_ for such splits.
Does not matter for the purposes of this ATL: Catholic Church was acting as an united institution for quite a while so in this ATL situation persists for couple more centuries. If you need to make Luther a Pope or to do some doctrinal changes, it is fine but not relevant. In ATL the Church preserves both its hierarchy and its property and the rest is irrelevant, just as the fact that it did not happen in OTL. I don't think that this is less realistic than ISOT scenarios to which you seemingly did not have any fundamental objections.
Insane Ranter
2017-12-23 06:11:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
*John Wycliffe - killed by the plague or during St Scholastica Day riot.
*Jan Hus - could have the plague get him too or his killed by robbers on the road to the capital.
*Martin Luther - the lightning bolt hits him and kills him.
*Huldrych Zwingli- is kicked by a horse when young and killed.
*Henry VIII - Catherine of Aragon give Henry an heir and he doesn't care to find another wife.
*John Calvin - his mother dies before having him.

Not sure this will work though....

Could stop the Avignon Papacy that may work.


Or we could just have Herod capture and killed Jesus before Mary and Joseph can whisk him away to Egypt and just snuff out the whole of Christianity before it starts.
Alex Milman
2017-12-23 17:51:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Insane Ranter
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
*John Wycliffe - killed by the plague or during St Scholastica Day riot.
*Jan Hus - could have the plague get him too or his killed by robbers on the road to the capital.
*Martin Luther - the lightning bolt hits him and kills him.
*Huldrych Zwingli- is kicked by a horse when young and killed.
*Henry VIII - Catherine of Aragon give Henry an heir and he doesn't care to find another wife.
*John Calvin - his mother dies before having him.
Not sure this will work though....
Could stop the Avignon Papacy that may work.
Or we could just have Herod capture and killed Jesus before Mary and Joseph can whisk him away to Egypt and just snuff out the whole of Christianity before it starts.
The question was not about the ways in which Reformation may not happen but about the byproducts of it not happening.
Robert Woodward
2017-12-23 06:41:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
There are several possible ways this can happen and I think they have
different effects:

1) A relatively young, reformist Pope makes an effort to clean up
various corrupt practices (decades before an annoyed German priest nails
his protest about those practices on a church door in OTL). This effort
will meet internal resistance (assuming such a pope could be elected). I
would expect some exciting times (perhaps even a schism after his,
possibly premature, death). Or do you consider this a Reformation by a
different name?

2) The Mongols conquer Europe (they are assimilated 2 centuries or so
later, but in the meanwhile they greatly diminish the wealth and
influence of the Church).

3) The Reformation doesn't happen in the 16th century (a number of
people died prematurely) and a more violent anti-clerical revolution
takes place in the 17th or 18th century.
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
SolomonW
2017-12-23 13:00:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
There are several possible ways this can happen and I think they have
1) A relatively young, reformist Pope makes an effort to clean up
various corrupt practices (decades before an annoyed German priest nails
his protest about those practices on a church door in OTL). This effort
will meet internal resistance (assuming such a pope could be elected). I
would expect some exciting times (perhaps even a schism after his,
possibly premature, death). Or do you consider this a Reformation by a
different name?
2) The Mongols conquer Europe (they are assimilated 2 centuries or so
later, but in the meanwhile they greatly diminish the wealth and
influence of the Church).
3) The Reformation doesn't happen in the 16th century (a number of
people died prematurely) and a more violent anti-clerical revolution
takes place in the 17th or 18th century.
Before or after Luther would make a big difference. We need more details on
the POD
Alex Milman
2017-12-23 18:17:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
There are several possible ways this can happen and I think they have
1) A relatively young, reformist Pope makes an effort to clean up
various corrupt practices (decades before an annoyed German priest nails
his protest about those practices on a church door in OTL). This effort
will meet internal resistance (assuming such a pope could be elected). I
would expect some exciting times (perhaps even a schism after his,
possibly premature, death). Or do you consider this a Reformation by a
different name?
2) The Mongols conquer Europe (they are assimilated 2 centuries or so
later, but in the meanwhile they greatly diminish the wealth and
influence of the Church).
3) The Reformation doesn't happen in the 16th century (a number of
people died prematurely) and a more violent anti-clerical revolution
takes place in the 17th or 18th century.
Before or after Luther would make a big difference.
If it does not happen, it does not happen either before or after Luther. The Catholic Church may reform itself or Papacy may not pursue the self-destructive course of OTL, it does not matter. What DOES matter is that there is no religious split in the XVI and at least some of the major events associated with that split may not happen. What would be impact on Europe?
SolomonW
2017-12-24 12:52:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
There are several possible ways this can happen and I think they have
1) A relatively young, reformist Pope makes an effort to clean up
various corrupt practices (decades before an annoyed German priest nails
his protest about those practices on a church door in OTL). This effort
will meet internal resistance (assuming such a pope could be elected). I
would expect some exciting times (perhaps even a schism after his,
possibly premature, death). Or do you consider this a Reformation by a
different name?
2) The Mongols conquer Europe (they are assimilated 2 centuries or so
later, but in the meanwhile they greatly diminish the wealth and
influence of the Church).
3) The Reformation doesn't happen in the 16th century (a number of
people died prematurely) and a more violent anti-clerical revolution
takes place in the 17th or 18th century.
Before or after Luther would make a big difference.
If it does not happen, it does not happen either before or after Luther. The Catholic Church may reform itself or Papacy may not pursue the self-destructive course of OTL, it does not matter. What DOES matter is that there is no religious split in the XVI and at least some of the major events associated with that split may not happen. What would be impact on Europe?
Oh it matters; the Catholic Church after Luther is a very different church
then the one before. Get rid of Luther in the timeline and you have a very
different Catholic Church today.
Alex Milman
2017-12-24 16:42:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
There are several possible ways this can happen and I think they have
1) A relatively young, reformist Pope makes an effort to clean up
various corrupt practices (decades before an annoyed German priest nails
his protest about those practices on a church door in OTL). This effort
will meet internal resistance (assuming such a pope could be elected). I
would expect some exciting times (perhaps even a schism after his,
possibly premature, death). Or do you consider this a Reformation by a
different name?
2) The Mongols conquer Europe (they are assimilated 2 centuries or so
later, but in the meanwhile they greatly diminish the wealth and
influence of the Church).
3) The Reformation doesn't happen in the 16th century (a number of
people died prematurely) and a more violent anti-clerical revolution
takes place in the 17th or 18th century.
Before or after Luther would make a big difference.
If it does not happen, it does not happen either before or after Luther. The Catholic Church may reform itself or Papacy may not pursue the self-destructive course of OTL, it does not matter. What DOES matter is that there is no religious split in the XVI and at least some of the major events associated with that split may not happen. What would be impact on Europe?
Oh it matters; the Catholic Church after Luther is a very different church
then the one before. Get rid of Luther in the timeline and you have a very
different Catholic Church today.
The question is NOT about the Catholic Church. It is about the changes in European history (NOT the history of a Church) caused by an absence of the Reformation. Is it too difficult to understand?
SolomonW
2017-12-24 17:09:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
There are several possible ways this can happen and I think they have
1) A relatively young, reformist Pope makes an effort to clean up
various corrupt practices (decades before an annoyed German priest nails
his protest about those practices on a church door in OTL). This effort
will meet internal resistance (assuming such a pope could be elected). I
would expect some exciting times (perhaps even a schism after his,
possibly premature, death). Or do you consider this a Reformation by a
different name?
2) The Mongols conquer Europe (they are assimilated 2 centuries or so
later, but in the meanwhile they greatly diminish the wealth and
influence of the Church).
3) The Reformation doesn't happen in the 16th century (a number of
people died prematurely) and a more violent anti-clerical revolution
takes place in the 17th or 18th century.
Before or after Luther would make a big difference.
If it does not happen, it does not happen either before or after Luther. The Catholic Church may reform itself or Papacy may not pursue the self-destructive course of OTL, it does not matter. What DOES matter is that there is no religious split in the XVI and at least some of the major events associated with that split may not happen. What would be impact on Europe?
Oh it matters; the Catholic Church after Luther is a very different church
then the one before. Get rid of Luther in the timeline and you have a very
different Catholic Church today.
The question is NOT about the Catholic Church. It is about the changes in European history (NOT the history of a Church) caused by an absence of the Reformation. Is it too difficult to understand?
A different Catholic Church is a different Europe
The Horny Goat
2017-12-24 18:00:35 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 08:42:27 -0800 (PST), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Oh it matters; the Catholic Church after Luther is a very different church
then the one before. Get rid of Luther in the timeline and you have a very
different Catholic Church today.
The question is NOT about the Catholic Church. It is about the changes in European history (NOT the history of a Church) caused by an absence of the Reformation. Is it too difficult to understand?
Would an earlier or later building of St Peter's in Rome delay the
Reformation? After all a lot of Luther's support was built on reaction
to the sale of indulgences a lot of which were to finance St Peter's.
Alex Milman
2017-12-24 18:32:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 24 Dec 2017 08:42:27 -0800 (PST), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Oh it matters; the Catholic Church after Luther is a very different church
then the one before. Get rid of Luther in the timeline and you have a very
different Catholic Church today.
The question is NOT about the Catholic Church. It is about the changes in European history (NOT the history of a Church) caused by an absence of the Reformation. Is it too difficult to understand?
Would an earlier or later building of St Peter's in Rome delay the
Reformation?
Who cares? The question was seemingly clear: no Reformation. Not how to avoid Reformation.
Insane Ranter
2017-12-24 21:18:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
There are several possible ways this can happen and I think they have
1) A relatively young, reformist Pope makes an effort to clean up
various corrupt practices (decades before an annoyed German priest nails
his protest about those practices on a church door in OTL). This effort
will meet internal resistance (assuming such a pope could be elected). I
would expect some exciting times (perhaps even a schism after his,
possibly premature, death). Or do you consider this a Reformation by a
different name?
2) The Mongols conquer Europe (they are assimilated 2 centuries or so
later, but in the meanwhile they greatly diminish the wealth and
influence of the Church).
3) The Reformation doesn't happen in the 16th century (a number of
people died prematurely) and a more violent anti-clerical revolution
takes place in the 17th or 18th century.
Before or after Luther would make a big difference.
If it does not happen, it does not happen either before or after Luther. The Catholic Church may reform itself or Papacy may not pursue the self-destructive course of OTL, it does not matter. What DOES matter is that there is no religious split in the XVI and at least some of the major events associated with that split may not happen. What would be impact on Europe?
Oh it matters; the Catholic Church after Luther is a very different church
then the one before. Get rid of Luther in the timeline and you have a very
different Catholic Church today.
The question is NOT about the Catholic Church. It is about the changes in European history (NOT the history of a Church) caused by an absence of the Reformation. Is it too difficult to understand?
How do you not discuss the Reformation without talking about the Catholic Church? With no reformation, schism, etc. All you have IS the Catholic Church.

I guess if we go with the scenario that Jesus is killed by Herod in 1 AD. There isn't a Catholic Church even started. And no Christianity to reform.

Europe and the knock off effect of the New World is all Muslim. So Islam is the religion of the world. With a small enclave of Jews, Buddhist, etc in pockets of the world.

How else do you purpose not including the very thing that reformation was reforming is beyond me as it would be effected the most....
Alex Milman
2017-12-25 16:50:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Insane Ranter
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
There are several possible ways this can happen and I think they have
1) A relatively young, reformist Pope makes an effort to clean up
various corrupt practices (decades before an annoyed German priest nails
his protest about those practices on a church door in OTL). This effort
will meet internal resistance (assuming such a pope could be elected). I
would expect some exciting times (perhaps even a schism after his,
possibly premature, death). Or do you consider this a Reformation by a
different name?
2) The Mongols conquer Europe (they are assimilated 2 centuries or so
later, but in the meanwhile they greatly diminish the wealth and
influence of the Church).
3) The Reformation doesn't happen in the 16th century (a number of
people died prematurely) and a more violent anti-clerical revolution
takes place in the 17th or 18th century.
Before or after Luther would make a big difference.
If it does not happen, it does not happen either before or after Luther. The Catholic Church may reform itself or Papacy may not pursue the self-destructive course of OTL, it does not matter. What DOES matter is that there is no religious split in the XVI and at least some of the major events associated with that split may not happen. What would be impact on Europe?
Oh it matters; the Catholic Church after Luther is a very different church
then the one before. Get rid of Luther in the timeline and you have a very
different Catholic Church today.
The question is NOT about the Catholic Church. It is about the changes in European history (NOT the history of a Church) caused by an absence of the Reformation. Is it too difficult to understand?
How do you not discuss the Reformation without talking about the Catholic Church?
Easily. No Reformation, no events related to the religious split. Concentrate on these differences.
Post by Insane Ranter
With no reformation, schism, etc. All you have IS the Catholic Church.
So, what you are trying to say is that the Church and religion were the only
things in Europe worth noticing.

[]
Post by Insane Ranter
How else do you purpose not including the very thing that reformation was reforming is beyond me as it would be effected the most....
Translation to the human language: you are itching to discuss the Reformation and can't imagine how somebody can discuss something else. :-)

It may come as a great surprise but there were some other things for which Reformation or its absence had been either irrelevant or just a tool.

For example, French-Hapsburg rivalry over the European supremacy. Dedicated Catholic Charles V had been extensively using the German Protestants (even to fight the Papacy) and so did the Catholic kings of France (adding the Swiss to the equation).

The 30YW _formally_ was about the religious issues but in a reality it was mostly about extent of the imperial power and the old French-Hapsburg rivalry (and some trifles like Spanish need to maintain access to the Netherlnads which would most probably rebel even without a religious issue): Catholic France was paying the Protestant powers to fight against the Catholic Hapsburgs while the Protestant princes of Germany had been making alliances with the Hapsburgs against the Protestant Swedes as soon as their secular interests had been guaranteed.

The Papacy as a power was practically invisible not only during the 30YW but even during the French Wars of the Religion (which were to a great degree about position of the nobility vs. royal power) and it seems that a big percentage of the prominent participants had been considering religion more or less as a convenient tool with a great freedom of a maneuver.

Absence of the religious component would make some of these events different but not necessarily eliminate them altogether. This ATL is about the scope of these changes.
Pete Barrett
2017-12-26 09:16:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
The 30YW _formally_ was about the religious issues but in a reality it
was mostly about extent of the imperial power and the old
French-Hapsburg rivalry (and some trifles like Spanish need to maintain
access to the Netherlnads which would most probably rebel even without a
religious issue): Catholic France was paying the Protestant powers to
fight against the Catholic Hapsburgs while the Protestant princes of
Germany had been making alliances with the Hapsburgs against the
Protestant Swedes as soon as their secular interests had been
guaranteed.
_Formally_, the 30YW started because (some members of) the Bohemian
estates decided to depose their (Habsburg and Catholic) king and choose a
(Wittlesbach and Calvinist) replacement. Whether they would have wanted
to do that without the Catholic-Protestant division is a question without
a clear answer, but exactly _how_ the lack of a Protestant-Catholic
division comes about is entirely relevant, it seems to me.

For instance, if the POD happens after Hus, then the Bohemian estates are
likely to be predominantly Hussite, even if there are no Lutherans (as
there were OTL), and the Hussites are in communion with Rome. In those
circumstances, the religious element could still be important, given the
extreme Catholicism of Ferdinand.

If the POD happens _before_ Hus, then the estates are Catholic, but as
you point out, the reality was also about the extent of imperial and
royal power, and the Bohemians may still rebel. Without the religious
element, the rebels may actually get _more_ assistance, because there
would be no obvious reason for Bavaria or the Prince-Bishops to get
involved on the imperial side, and they may even side _against_ the
Emperor in furtherance of their own (secular) interests.

And that's just one instance of the importance of _how_ it comes about,
as against _that_ it comes about.
--
Pete BARRETT
Alex Milman
2017-12-27 16:55:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Alex Milman
The 30YW _formally_ was about the religious issues but in a reality it
was mostly about extent of the imperial power and the old
French-Hapsburg rivalry (and some trifles like Spanish need to maintain
access to the Netherlnads which would most probably rebel even without a
religious issue): Catholic France was paying the Protestant powers to
fight against the Catholic Hapsburgs while the Protestant princes of
Germany had been making alliances with the Hapsburgs against the
Protestant Swedes as soon as their secular interests had been
guaranteed.
_Formally_, the 30YW started because (some members of) the Bohemian
estates decided to depose their (Habsburg and Catholic) king and choose a
(Wittlesbach and Calvinist) replacement. Whether they would have wanted
to do that without the Catholic-Protestant division is a question without
a clear answer, but exactly _how_ the lack of a Protestant-Catholic
division comes about is entirely relevant, it seems to me.
The OTL framework that started the 30YW became relevant due to the Catholic/Protestant issues. Election of the "Winter King" was a clear "up yours" gesture (religiously motivated but also prompted by Ferdinand's attempt to expand the royal authority beyond the traditional limits), which caused 2 important things: (a) changed balance of the imperial electorate into Protestant favor (potentially, creating a danger of Hapsburgs losing the imperial tittle) and (b) endangered the "Spanish Road". Of course, without the religious split "a" would not be important (except for the same person holding 2 electoral positions) but chances are that the Dutch Revolution may still take place and "b" would be important.

However, I was talking not about the events which triggered the war but about the war itself. The broad Protestant coalition was created because the German Protestant rulers felt endangered by the emperor's attempt to encroach upon their "rights" by demanding to restore the stolen church property to the "owner" which, besides the financial loses, would imply the greater imperial power within the princely possessions (small wonder that the princes were not excited).

It is worth noticing that even the Catholic princes (especially Bavaria) had been unhappy with strengthening of the imperial power (hence Wallenstein's dismissal).

Later, when the Protestant princes achieved agreement with the Emperor they were ready to fight against the Swedes whom they were initially considering as their saviors (and who, besides "defending" the Protestant Faith, had been busily looting Germany and occupying the imperial lands on the Baltic coast).

Similarly, the government of Catholic France was supporting the Protestant cause in Germany while suppressing the Huguenot rebellions within France. It seems that the religious issues were much less important for Richelieu (and Mazarin) than territorial disputes with the Catholic Hapsburgs.

To make the long story short, while not denying the religious component, I'm saying that something of the kind would probably happen as a reaction of the German rulers to the attempts of the imperial administration to expand its authority (unless we assume that the Austrian Hapsburgs would never try anything of the kind).
Post by Pete Barrett
For instance, if the POD happens after Hus,
Yes, this was the intended framework (AFAIK, "Reformation" is traditionally associated with Luther, not Hus).
Post by Pete Barrett
then the Bohemian estates are
likely to be predominantly Hussite, even if there are no Lutherans (as
there were OTL), and the Hussites are in communion with Rome. In those
circumstances, the religious element could still be important, given the
extreme Catholicism of Ferdinand.
But Bohemia is religiously isolated, which makes a lot of a difference.
Post by Pete Barrett
If the POD happens _before_ Hus, then the estates are Catholic, but as
you point out, the reality was also about the extent of imperial and
royal power, and the Bohemians may still rebel. Without the religious
element, the rebels may actually get _more_ assistance, because there
would be no obvious reason for Bavaria or the Prince-Bishops to get
involved on the imperial side, and they may even side _against_ the
Emperor in furtherance of their own (secular) interests.
Which is exactly the point. We'd have a potential conflict between Hapsburgs' imperial ambitions and interests of the local rulers.

As I already mentioned above, in OTL the Catholic League was acting for a while as an independent force with its own army while the emperor had very little in the terms of its own military power. Creation of the imperial army by Wallenstein changed the balance and the Catholic princes had been vocally unhappy about his behavior. OTOH, the Protestant (or at least Lutheran) princes became ready for a compromise (which guaranteed their own rights) as soon as it became obvious that their main champion, Sweden, is looking for its own interests and is hardly better (from their perspective) than the imperial camp.

Without the religious component we may have an alternative "30YW" with the Hapsburgs (and their supporters) fighting against the broad coalition of the German princes (supported by France) fighting for their traditional rights against the imperial oppression. Participation of the 3rd parties like Denmark and Sweden is still possible - Gustav Adolph (or rather Axel Oxenstierna) was looking for building Swedish Baltic Empire.

However, there could be an additional twist:

In OTL the Swedes threw out King Sigismund Vasa (who was also king of the Commonwealth) due to his Catholicism and replaced him with the Protestant Vasa. This resulted in the series of Swedish-Polish wars (all the way to mid-XVII) and also had noticeable impact upon the "Time of the Troubles" in Russia. Without a religious factor Sigismund may retain ALL crowns and there could be a prolonged (even if hardly a permanent) union resulting in creation of a "regional superpower" in Northern Europe.
Post by Pete Barrett
And that's just one instance of the importance of _how_ it comes about,
as against _that_ it comes about.
Of course. This was the original intention of ATL.
Alex Milman
2017-12-23 18:12:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
There are several possible ways this can happen and I think they have
1) A relatively young, reformist Pope makes an effort to clean up
various corrupt practices (decades before an annoyed German priest nails
his protest about those practices on a church door in OTL). This effort
will meet internal resistance (assuming such a pope could be elected). I
would expect some exciting times (perhaps even a schism after his,
possibly premature, death). Or do you consider this a Reformation by a
different name?
Probably it may take just a Pope (or a sequence of them) who are less bent on "let's enjoy it" part of being a Pope than Leo X was. Not necessarily the naive religious fanatics but practical people capable of understanding the potential dangers of continuing the existing course (how about the earlier recognition of Luther's importance, his elevation into cardinal and putting him in charge of the _committee_ charged with making proposals regarding the Catholic Church reform? :-)).
Post by Robert Woodward
2) The Mongols conquer Europe (they are assimilated 2 centuries or so
later, but in the meanwhile they greatly diminish the wealth and
influence of the Church).
Highly unlikely: as a matter of their policy they supported all local religions providing these religions were loyal to the regime.
Post by Robert Woodward
3) The Reformation doesn't happen in the 16th century (a number of
people died prematurely) and a more violent anti-clerical revolution
takes place in the 17th or 18th century.
Well, all these "how" are interesting but let's concentrate on what WOULD NOT happen. The minimal list:

No French Wars of the Religion.

Anti-Spanish rebellion in the Netherlands still may happen but it would be strictly about the economy with a possibility of some type of an earlier compromise.

Germany is not split by the religious issues and there is a good chance that the 30YW is avoided.

So you don't have 2 or 3 major and extremely bloody wars with the terrible economic and demographic consequences.

The Commonwealth may remain in union with Sweden (at least for quite a while) which means a seriously different geopolitical situation in North-Eastern Europe (with a domino effect on Russia).
Graham Truesdale
2017-12-23 19:31:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
There are several possible ways this can happen and I think they have
1) A relatively young,
Leo X was elected at the age of 37. Compare the changes brought about by eg John XXIII (elected within a month of his 77th birthday).
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Robert Woodward
reformist Pope makes an effort to clean up
various corrupt practices (decades before an annoyed German priest nails
his protest about those practices on a church door in OTL). This effort
will meet internal resistance (assuming such a pope could be elected). I
would expect some exciting times (perhaps even a schism after his,
possibly premature, death). Or do you consider this a Reformation by a
different name?
Probably it may take just a Pope (or a sequence of them) who are less bent on "let's enjoy it" part of being a Pope than Leo X was. Not necessarily the naive religious fanatics but practical people capable of understanding the potential dangers of continuing the existing course
Someone (or a series of someones) like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Adrian_VI? https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Adrian_(popes) "Crowned in St Peter's on the 31st of August at the age of sixty-three, he entered upon the lonely path of the reformer. His programme was to attack notorious abuses one by one; but in his attempt to improve the system of granting indulgences he was hampered by his cardinals; and reducing the number of matrimonial dispensations was impossible, for the income had been farmed out for years in advance by Leo X... the frank admission that the whole disorder of the church had perchance proceeded from the Curia itself, and that there the reform should begin"
Post by Alex Milman
(how about the earlier recognition of Luther's importance, his elevation into cardinal and putting him in charge of the _committee_ charged with making proposals regarding the Catholic Church reform? :-)).
So WI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_conclave,_1513 goes differently? Eg all the French cardinals arrive in time to participate?
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Robert Woodward
2) The Mongols conquer Europe (they are assimilated 2 centuries or so
later, but in the meanwhile they greatly diminish the wealth and
influence of the Church).
Highly unlikely: as a matter of their policy they supported all local religions providing these religions were loyal to the regime.
But did this prevent them from seizing the assets of said local religions?
Alex Milman
2017-12-24 16:56:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham Truesdale
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
There are several possible ways this can happen and I think they have
1) A relatively young,
Leo X was elected at the age of 37. Compare the changes brought about by eg John XXIII (elected within a month of his 77th birthday).
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Robert Woodward
reformist Pope makes an effort to clean up
various corrupt practices (decades before an annoyed German priest nails
his protest about those practices on a church door in OTL). This effort
will meet internal resistance (assuming such a pope could be elected). I
would expect some exciting times (perhaps even a schism after his,
possibly premature, death). Or do you consider this a Reformation by a
different name?
Probably it may take just a Pope (or a sequence of them) who are less bent on "let's enjoy it" part of being a Pope than Leo X was. Not necessarily the naive religious fanatics but practical people capable of understanding the potential dangers of continuing the existing course
Someone (or a series of someones) like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Adrian_VI? https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Adrian_(popes) "Crowned in St Peter's on the 31st of August at the age of sixty-three, he entered upon the lonely path of the reformer. His programme was to attack notorious abuses one by one; but in his attempt to improve the system of granting indulgences he was hampered by his cardinals; and reducing the number of matrimonial dispensations was impossible, for the income had been farmed out for years in advance by Leo X... the frank admission that the whole disorder of the church had perchance proceeded from the Curia itself, and that there the reform should begin"
[sight]

It is REALLY upsetting. I'm asking a relatively simple question about consequences of the absence of the Reformation and everybody keeps talking about the Papacy as if there was nothing else in Europe.

It is absolutely irrelevant for this ATL how exactly the Reformation is avoided. The question is about the changes (outside the Church) caused by its absence.

[]
Post by Graham Truesdale
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Robert Woodward
2) The Mongols conquer Europe (they are assimilated 2 centuries or so
later, but in the meanwhile they greatly diminish the wealth and
influence of the Church).
Highly unlikely: as a matter of their policy they supported all local religions providing these religions were loyal to the regime.
But did this prevent them from seizing the assets of said local religions?
Applicable to the moment of conquest (if the cities had been taken by storm) and even then with some caveats (it seems that when Hulagu took Baghdad he took care of not damaging the Nestorians). But after the dust was settled the religious institutions were under Khan's protection and free of taxation on a condition that they are praying for Knan's (and local ruler's) health. Judging by the Russian Church, the losses suffered during the conquest had been compensated very fast and there were definitely land grants from the rulers of the "Golden" Horde.
The Horny Goat
2017-12-24 17:59:08 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 22:41:56 -0800, Robert Woodward
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
There are several possible ways this can happen and I think they have
1) A relatively young, reformist Pope makes an effort to clean up
various corrupt practices (decades before an annoyed German priest nails
his protest about those practices on a church door in OTL). This effort
will meet internal resistance (assuming such a pope could be elected). I
would expect some exciting times (perhaps even a schism after his,
possibly premature, death). Or do you consider this a Reformation by a
different name?
2) The Mongols conquer Europe (they are assimilated 2 centuries or so
later, but in the meanwhile they greatly diminish the wealth and
influence of the Church).
3) The Reformation doesn't happen in the 16th century (a number of
people died prematurely) and a more violent anti-clerical revolution
takes place in the 17th or 18th century.
I would argue that delaying the printing press would be sufficient to
greatly reduce the probability of both the Reformation and the later
English Civil War (100+ years later) as pamphleteering was a big
factor in both.
a***@gmail.com
2017-12-23 22:27:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
Why was there no reformation splitting the Eastern Orthodox Church. Not being facetious, just that a comparison between both church structures and history would be useful. (I presume you don't mean minor heresies and minuscule sects, but something big)
Phil McGregor
2017-12-24 03:58:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
Why was there no reformation splitting the Eastern Orthodox Church. Not being facetious, just that a comparison between both church structures and history would be useful. (I presume you don't mean minor heresies and minuscule sects, but something big)
Because there wasn't AN Eastern Orthodox Church?

There were many, each of which was independent of the others.

And, to confuse things even more, consider the situation of Autonomous vis a vis Autocephalous Churches.

A big thing, I suspect, is the fact that Eastern Orthdox Churches never adopted Scholasticism ... they retained a dominance of the mystical
which, by its very nature, was inexplicable by mortals, and therefore avoided a lot of the theological hairsplitting that led to schism and
heresy that the Roman Church got hit with due to the adoption of Scholasticism (legalistic hair-splitting, simply put).

AIUI Eastern Orthodoxy in general believes strongly that the Roman Church lost (and continues to lose) the plot completely by denigrating
the inexplicable mysticaln and promoting a not-picking legalism.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@tpg.com.au
SolomonW
2017-12-24 12:52:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
Why was there no reformation splitting the Eastern Orthodox Church. Not being facetious, just that a comparison between both church structures and history would be useful. (I presume you don't mean minor heresies and minuscule sects, but something big)
Because there wasn't AN Eastern Orthodox Church?
There were many, each of which was independent of the others.
And, to confuse things even more, consider the situation of Autonomous vis a vis Autocephalous Churches.
A big thing, I suspect, is the fact that Eastern Orthdox Churches never adopted Scholasticism ... they retained a dominance of the mystical
which, by its very nature, was inexplicable by mortals, and therefore avoided a lot of the theological hairsplitting that led to schism and
heresy that the Roman Church got hit with due to the adoption of Scholasticism (legalistic hair-splitting, simply put).
AIUI Eastern Orthodoxy in general believes strongly that the Roman Church lost (and continues to lose) the plot completely by denigrating
the inexplicable mysticaln and promoting a not-picking legalism.
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True but also these churches did experience schisms notably with the old
believers, However many of the issues if you go through Luther's points are
less important in the Eastern Church as is celibacy, plus unlike in Western
Europe, the literacy rate in the East was lower and there were fewer
printing presses, which were more controlled, then in the West.


Furthermore, all these churches were firmly tied into the states and
nationalism and so unlike the West; the state leaders did not split into
two camps. A schism without an army is much less of a threat to the state
religion.
Alex Milman
2017-12-24 18:51:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
Why was there no reformation splitting the Eastern Orthodox Church. Not being facetious, just that a comparison between both church structures and history would be useful. (I presume you don't mean minor heresies and minuscule sects, but something big)
Because there wasn't AN Eastern Orthodox Church?
There were many, each of which was independent of the others.
But have the same doctrine and, what is more important, consider themselves the parts of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

[]
Post by SolomonW
True but also these churches did experience schisms notably with the old
believers,
The old believers were not dogmatically united (there were numerous sects) but they also considered themselves members of the Eastern Orthodox Church even is the Russian official church. Initially, they were just the traditionalists rejecting reform from the top.
Post by SolomonW
However many of the issues if you go through Luther's points are
less important in the Eastern Church as is celibacy, plus unlike in Western
Europe, the literacy rate in the East was lower and there were fewer
printing presses, which were more controlled, then in the West.
Illiteracy and printing are not the same: following your logic, all Ancient World was illiterate. :-)
Post by SolomonW
Furthermore, all these churches were firmly tied into the states and
nationalism and so unlike the West; the state leaders did not split into
two camps.
Now, this is a good point, in theory. :-)

The reality is that most of the Eastern Orthodox patriarchates had been "firmly tied" to the Muslim state, Ottoman Empire (position of the Sultans toward the Orthodoxy and its uniformity is besides the point) and another big group of the Eastern Orthodox Christians lived in the "state" where (a) the issue of a "state leadership" was something of a joke and (b) prevailing religion was Catholicism.
Post by SolomonW
A schism without an army is much less of a threat to the state
religion.
SolomonW
2017-12-25 03:55:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
Why was there no reformation splitting the Eastern Orthodox Church. Not being facetious, just that a comparison between both church structures and history would be useful. (I presume you don't mean minor heresies and minuscule sects, but something big)
Because there wasn't AN Eastern Orthodox Church?
There were many, each of which was independent of the others.
But have the same doctrine and, what is more important, consider themselves the parts of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
[]
Post by SolomonW
True but also these churches did experience schisms notably with the old
believers,
The old believers were not dogmatically united (there were numerous sects)
Indeed as were many of the players in the "reformation"
Post by Alex Milman
but they also considered themselves members of the Eastern Orthodox Church even is the Russian official church. Initially, they were just the traditionalists rejecting reform from the top.
Well Luther initially did not set out to create a new church.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
However many of the issues if you go through Luther's points are
less important in the Eastern Church as is celibacy, plus unlike in Western
Europe, the literacy rate in the East was lower and there were fewer
printing presses, which were more controlled, then in the West.
Illiteracy and printing are not the same: following your logic, all Ancient World was illiterate. :-)
Indeed but both were important in the spread of the reformation.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Furthermore, all these churches were firmly tied into the states and
nationalism and so unlike the West; the state leaders did not split into
two camps.
Now, this is a good point, in theory. :-)
The reality is that most of the Eastern Orthodox patriarchates had been "firmly tied" to the Muslim state, Ottoman Empire (position of the Sultans toward the Orthodoxy and its uniformity is besides the point) and another big group of the Eastern Orthodox Christians lived in the "state" where (a) the issue of a "state leadership" was something of a joke and (b) prevailing religion was Catholicism.
That is why I said nationalism too.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
A schism without an army is much less of a threat to the state
religion.
Alex Milman
2017-12-25 17:09:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
Why was there no reformation splitting the Eastern Orthodox Church. Not being facetious, just that a comparison between both church structures and history would be useful. (I presume you don't mean minor heresies and minuscule sects, but something big)
Because there wasn't AN Eastern Orthodox Church?
There were many, each of which was independent of the others.
But have the same doctrine and, what is more important, consider themselves the parts of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
[]
Post by SolomonW
True but also these churches did experience schisms notably with the old
believers,
The old believers were not dogmatically united (there were numerous sects)
Indeed as were many of the players in the "reformation"
The Old Believers hardly can be equated to the Reformation by a simple reason of them being AGAINST the Church reform. Taking into an account that the said reform was strictly about the "rules and regulations" of the Church services and did not involve any structural changes, the comparison is highly questionable.
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
but they also considered themselves members of the Eastern Orthodox Church even is the Russian official church. Initially, they were just the traditionalists rejecting reform from the top.
Well Luther initially did not set out to create a new church.
Luther was proposing something new while the Old Believers had been rejecting everything new.
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
However many of the issues if you go through Luther's points are
less important in the Eastern Church as is celibacy, plus unlike in Western
Europe, the literacy rate in the East was lower and there were fewer
printing presses, which were more controlled, then in the West.
Illiteracy and printing are not the same: following your logic, all Ancient World was illiterate. :-)
Indeed but both were important in the spread of the reformation.
The point remains: absence of printing has nothing to do with illiteracy.

And it goes without saying that you don't have any clear data about the comparable literacy levels in the Western vs. Eastern Europe by the XVI century and just operating with the stereotypes.
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Furthermore, all these churches were firmly tied into the states and
nationalism and so unlike the West; the state leaders did not split into
two camps.
Now, this is a good point, in theory. :-)
The reality is that most of the Eastern Orthodox patriarchates had been "firmly tied" to the Muslim state, Ottoman Empire (position of the Sultans toward the Orthodoxy and its uniformity is besides the point) and another big group of the Eastern Orthodox Christians lived in the "state" where (a) the issue of a "state leadership" was something of a joke and (b) prevailing religion was Catholicism.
That is why I said nationalism too.
How "nationalism" would play for the Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire?

How "nationalism" was playing for the Orthodox population of the Commonwealth? A hint for you: in the areas with the big percentage of the Orthodox Christians it was split SOCIALLY, not religiously. Religion was getting into the picture only as a byproduct of the social division and even then the principle was not applicable universally.

Even in the case of the Muscovite state "nationalism" was not a clear-cut Orthodox thing because quite a few loyal subjects were Muslims.
SolomonW
2017-12-26 13:14:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
Why was there no reformation splitting the Eastern Orthodox Church. Not being facetious, just that a comparison between both church structures and history would be useful. (I presume you don't mean minor heresies and minuscule sects, but something big)
Because there wasn't AN Eastern Orthodox Church?
There were many, each of which was independent of the others.
But have the same doctrine and, what is more important, consider themselves the parts of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
[]
(a)
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
True but also these churches did experience schisms notably with the old
believers,
The old believers were not dogmatically united (there were numerous sects)
Indeed as were many of the players in the "reformation"
The Old Believers hardly can be equated to the Reformation by a simple reason of them being AGAINST the Church reform. Taking into an account that the said reform was strictly about the "rules and regulations" of the Church services and did not involve any structural changes, the comparison is highly questionable.
If you follow the discussion, see (a) above, you will find the claim being
made is that the Orthodox Church did not have schisms well clearly this is
not so simple. I would argue that the Old Believers probably are more
similar to "Counter-Reformation" which was part of the Reformation. Now due
to their beliefs, they had to in varying degrees many had to leave the
offical Orthodox church.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
but they also considered themselves members of the Eastern Orthodox Church even is the Russian official church. Initially, they were just the traditionalists rejecting reform from the top.
Well Luther initially did not set out to create a new church.
Luther was proposing something new
What was so new that Luther was proposing initially? Luther big issue was
the sale of indulgences; this was relatively new what Luther was a return
to what he saw as the early Christian belief.
Post by Alex Milman
while the Old Believers had been rejecting everything new.
Mmmmmm If you follow my argument, Luther was too.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
However many of the issues if you go through Luther's points are
less important in the Eastern Church as is celibacy, plus unlike in Western
Europe, the literacy rate in the East was lower and there were fewer
printing presses, which were more controlled, then in the West.
Illiteracy and printing are not the same: following your logic, all Ancient World was illiterate. :-)
Indeed but both were important in the spread of the reformation.
The point remains: absence of printing has nothing to do with illiteracy.
I would disagree.Printing by making writing more available and cheaper
encouraged literacy.
Post by Alex Milman
And it goes without saying that you don't have any clear data about the comparable literacy levels in the Western vs. Eastern Europe by the XVI century and just operating with the stereotypes.
Actually, you and I have this discussed this issue before, and Western
Europe was more literate then Eastern Europe.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Furthermore, all these churches were firmly tied into the states and
nationalism and so unlike the West; the state leaders did not split into
two camps.
Now, this is a good point, in theory. :-)
The reality is that most of the Eastern Orthodox patriarchates had been "firmly tied" to the Muslim state, Ottoman Empire (position of the Sultans toward the Orthodoxy and its uniformity is besides the point) and another big group of the Eastern Orthodox Christians lived in the "state" where (a) the issue of a "state leadership" was something of a joke and (b) prevailing religion was Catholicism.
That is why I said nationalism too.
How "nationalism" would play for the Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire?
How "nationalism" was playing for the Orthodox population of the Commonwealth? A hint for you: in the areas with the big percentage of the Orthodox Christians it was split SOCIALLY, not religiously. Religion was getting into the picture only as a byproduct of the social division and even then the principle was not applicable universally.
Even in the case of the Muscovite state "nationalism" was not a clear-cut Orthodox thing because quite a few loyal subjects were Muslims.
Mmmmmm


I have met a Catholic Serb, but they are rare. In Yugoslavia, for example,
until recently, a person's nationality and his religion are tied up
together.
The Horny Goat
2017-12-26 19:34:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
while the Old Believers had been rejecting everything new.
Mmmmmm If you follow my argument, Luther was too.
Well yes and no - reading the Bible in the vernacular as a priority
was not an ancient belief.

It was a pretty basic difference between Protestants of all sorts and
the Catholic church through Vatican II.
SolomonW
2017-12-27 13:13:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
while the Old Believers had been rejecting everything new.
Mmmmmm If you follow my argument, Luther was too.
Well yes and no - reading the Bible in the vernacular as a priority
was not an ancient belief.
Well, the ancient Greeks, Romans and Jews did have had bibles in their
vernacular. It would have been in the Middle Ages when people could no
longer get it in their vernacular. Since many people if they could read it
would be either in Latin or Greek this problem was, to some extent,
reduced.

Here are some interesting pages on the subject as its a common myth that
Catholicism was opposing translation of scripture into the vernacular.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_in_the_Middle_Ages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_into_German
Post by The Horny Goat
It was a pretty basic difference between Protestants of all sorts and
the Catholic church through Vatican II.
Indeed.

The truth is that the Catholic church was concerned about non aproved
versions of the bible and unregistered people teaching the bible.
Alex Milman
2017-12-27 17:41:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
Why was there no reformation splitting the Eastern Orthodox Church. Not being facetious, just that a comparison between both church structures and history would be useful. (I presume you don't mean minor heresies and minuscule sects, but something big)
Because there wasn't AN Eastern Orthodox Church?
There were many, each of which was independent of the others.
But have the same doctrine and, what is more important, consider themselves the parts of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
[]
(a)
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
True but also these churches did experience schisms notably with the old
believers,
The old believers were not dogmatically united (there were numerous sects)
Indeed as were many of the players in the "reformation"
The Old Believers hardly can be equated to the Reformation by a simple reason of them being AGAINST the Church reform. Taking into an account that the said reform was strictly about the "rules and regulations" of the Church services and did not involve any structural changes, the comparison is highly questionable.
If you follow the discussion, see (a) above, you will find the claim being
made is that the Orthodox Church did not have schisms well clearly this is
not so simple. I would argue that the Old Believers probably are more
similar to "Counter-Reformation" which was part of the Reformation. Now due
to their beliefs, they had to in varying degrees many had to leave the
offical Orthodox church.
You can argue whatever you want. The problem is that the subject is quite complicated and you simply don't have enough knowledge to discuss it with any credibility. Neither do I even if I read much more on the subject that you did (at least I understand that making parallels like yours is silly). Nikon's church reform had very little in common with the Reformation and the Old Believers hardly could be considered as counter-Reformation.

[]
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
And it goes without saying that you don't have any clear data about the comparable literacy levels in the Western vs. Eastern Europe by the XVI century and just operating with the stereotypes.
Actually, you and I have this discussed this issue before, and Western
Europe was more literate then Eastern Europe.
Rather you keep saying whatever you think without backing it with any reliable data (which hardly could be obtained for XVI Europe, anyway).

If anything, the Old Believers (who had been rejecting the printed literature) ended up being more "literate" than their Orthodox contemporaries.
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Furthermore, all these churches were firmly tied into the states and
nationalism and so unlike the West; the state leaders did not split into
two camps.
Now, this is a good point, in theory. :-)
The reality is that most of the Eastern Orthodox patriarchates had been "firmly tied" to the Muslim state, Ottoman Empire (position of the Sultans toward the Orthodoxy and its uniformity is besides the point) and another big group of the Eastern Orthodox Christians lived in the "state" where (a) the issue of a "state leadership" was something of a joke and (b) prevailing religion was Catholicism.
That is why I said nationalism too.
How "nationalism" would play for the Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire?
How "nationalism" was playing for the Orthodox population of the Commonwealth? A hint for you: in the areas with the big percentage of the Orthodox Christians it was split SOCIALLY, not religiously. Religion was getting into the picture only as a byproduct of the social division and even then the principle was not applicable universally.
Even in the case of the Muscovite state "nationalism" was not a clear-cut Orthodox thing because quite a few loyal subjects were Muslims.
Mmmmmm
I have met a Catholic Serb, but they are rare.
Well, OK, I knew a Jew who was a Catholic. What this has to do with the subject?
Post by SolomonW
In Yugoslavia, for example,
until recently, a person's nationality and his religion are tied up
together.
Sorry, what this jewel of wisdom has to do with what I said about "nationalism" in the Ottoman Empire?
SolomonW
2017-12-28 12:38:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
Why was there no reformation splitting the Eastern Orthodox Church. Not being facetious, just that a comparison between both church structures and history would be useful. (I presume you don't mean minor heresies and minuscule sects, but something big)
Because there wasn't AN Eastern Orthodox Church?
There were many, each of which was independent of the others.
But have the same doctrine and, what is more important, consider themselves the parts of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
[]
(a)
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
True but also these churches did experience schisms notably with the old
believers,
The old believers were not dogmatically united (there were numerous sects)
Indeed as were many of the players in the "reformation"
The Old Believers hardly can be equated to the Reformation by a simple reason of them being AGAINST the Church reform. Taking into an account that the said reform was strictly about the "rules and regulations" of the Church services and did not involve any structural changes, the comparison is highly questionable.
If you follow the discussion, see (a) above, you will find the claim being
made is that the Orthodox Church did not have schisms well clearly this is
not so simple. I would argue that the Old Believers probably are more
similar to "Counter-Reformation" which was part of the Reformation. Now due
to their beliefs, they had to in varying degrees many had to leave the
offical Orthodox church.
You can argue whatever you want.
Indeed and a schism it was.


https://orthodoxwiki.org/Old_Believers
Alex Milman
2017-12-28 15:52:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
Why was there no reformation splitting the Eastern Orthodox Church. Not being facetious, just that a comparison between both church structures and history would be useful. (I presume you don't mean minor heresies and minuscule sects, but something big)
Because there wasn't AN Eastern Orthodox Church?
There were many, each of which was independent of the others.
But have the same doctrine and, what is more important, consider themselves the parts of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
[]
(a)
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
True but also these churches did experience schisms notably with the old
believers,
The old believers were not dogmatically united (there were numerous sects)
Indeed as were many of the players in the "reformation"
The Old Believers hardly can be equated to the Reformation by a simple reason of them being AGAINST the Church reform. Taking into an account that the said reform was strictly about the "rules and regulations" of the Church services and did not involve any structural changes, the comparison is highly questionable.
If you follow the discussion, see (a) above, you will find the claim being
made is that the Orthodox Church did not have schisms well clearly this is
not so simple. I would argue that the Old Believers probably are more
similar to "Counter-Reformation" which was part of the Reformation. Now due
to their beliefs, they had to in varying degrees many had to leave the
offical Orthodox church.
You can argue whatever you want.
Indeed and a schism it was.
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Old_Believers
If you paid any attention to what's written, you'd easily find that I did not object against the word "schism". But Raskol was neither reformation nor counter-reformation, which was the point that you were "arguing" (which in your case amounts to making a statement unsupported by any facts).

BTW, the link openly contradicts your pontifications about illiteracy: "Today this pseudo-scientific opinion is completely disproved. In the course of impartial historical research in the 20th century, it was established that the very substantial part of the population of ancient Russia was literate."
SolomonW
2017-12-30 11:50:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
Why was there no reformation splitting the Eastern Orthodox Church. Not being facetious, just that a comparison between both church structures and history would be useful. (I presume you don't mean minor heresies and minuscule sects, but something big)
Because there wasn't AN Eastern Orthodox Church?
There were many, each of which was independent of the others.
But have the same doctrine and, what is more important, consider themselves the parts of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
[]
(a)
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
True but also these churches did experience schisms notably with the old
believers,
The old believers were not dogmatically united (there were numerous sects)
Indeed as were many of the players in the "reformation"
The Old Believers hardly can be equated to the Reformation by a simple reason of them being AGAINST the Church reform. Taking into an account that the said reform was strictly about the "rules and regulations" of the Church services and did not involve any structural changes, the comparison is highly questionable.
If you follow the discussion, see (a) above, you will find the claim being
made is that the Orthodox Church did not have schisms well clearly this is
not so simple. I would argue that the Old Believers probably are more
similar to "Counter-Reformation" which was part of the Reformation. Now due
to their beliefs, they had to in varying degrees many had to leave the
offical Orthodox church.
You can argue whatever you want.
Indeed and a schism it was.
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Old_Believers
If you paid any attention to what's written, you'd easily find that I did not object against the word "schism".
So we agree it was a schism which was my point.
Post by Alex Milman
But Raskol was neither reformation nor counter-reformation, which was the point that you were "arguing" (which in your case amounts to making a statement unsupported by any facts).
Historical algology is often very dicey.
Post by Alex Milman
BTW, the link openly contradicts your pontifications about illiteracy: "Today this pseudo-scientific opinion is completely disproved. In the course of impartial historical research in the 20th century, it was established that the very substantial part of the population of ancient Russia was literate."
How does it disprove it? My claim was that illiteracy was higher in Russia
then in Western Europe?
Alex Milman
2017-12-30 15:27:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
Why was there no reformation splitting the Eastern Orthodox Church. Not being facetious, just that a comparison between both church structures and history would be useful. (I presume you don't mean minor heresies and minuscule sects, but something big)
Because there wasn't AN Eastern Orthodox Church?
There were many, each of which was independent of the others.
But have the same doctrine and, what is more important, consider themselves the parts of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
[]
(a)
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
True but also these churches did experience schisms notably with the old
believers,
The old believers were not dogmatically united (there were numerous sects)
Indeed as were many of the players in the "reformation"
The Old Believers hardly can be equated to the Reformation by a simple reason of them being AGAINST the Church reform. Taking into an account that the said reform was strictly about the "rules and regulations" of the Church services and did not involve any structural changes, the comparison is highly questionable.
If you follow the discussion, see (a) above, you will find the claim being
made is that the Orthodox Church did not have schisms well clearly this is
not so simple. I would argue that the Old Believers probably are more
similar to "Counter-Reformation" which was part of the Reformation. Now due
to their beliefs, they had to in varying degrees many had to leave the
offical Orthodox church.
You can argue whatever you want.
Indeed and a schism it was.
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Old_Believers
If you paid any attention to what's written, you'd easily find that I did not object against the word "schism".
So we agree it was a schism which was my point.
You also made "points" about counter-Reformation to which I objected. As for schism, I never argued against it because "Raskol" means just that.
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
But Raskol was neither reformation nor counter-reformation, which was the point that you were "arguing" (which in your case amounts to making a statement unsupported by any facts).
Historical algology is often very dicey.
Don't make "dicey" analogies, especially on the subjects about which you don't have an adequate knowledge.
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
BTW, the link openly contradicts your pontifications about illiteracy: "Today this pseudo-scientific opinion is completely disproved. In the course of impartial historical research in the 20th century, it was established that the very substantial part of the population of ancient Russia was literate."
How does it disprove it? My claim was that illiteracy was higher in Russia
then in Western Europe?
Well, there is no need to "disprove" your claim because it was not proved by anything besides ... well, your claim. Bring reliable statistics about the relative levels of literacy in Western and Eastern Europe of the XVI century. Of course, it is going without saying that an assumption that at that time the "Western Europe" was something uniform in the terms of literacy is plain silly.
SolomonW
2017-12-31 09:05:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
Why was there no reformation splitting the Eastern Orthodox Church. Not being facetious, just that a comparison between both church structures and history would be useful. (I presume you don't mean minor heresies and minuscule sects, but something big)
Because there wasn't AN Eastern Orthodox Church?
There were many, each of which was independent of the others.
But have the same doctrine and, what is more important, consider themselves the parts of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
[]
(a)
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
True but also these churches did experience schisms notably with the old
believers,
The old believers were not dogmatically united (there were numerous sects)
Indeed as were many of the players in the "reformation"
The Old Believers hardly can be equated to the Reformation by a simple reason of them being AGAINST the Church reform. Taking into an account that the said reform was strictly about the "rules and regulations" of the Church services and did not involve any structural changes, the comparison is highly questionable.
If you follow the discussion, see (a) above, you will find the claim being
made is that the Orthodox Church did not have schisms well clearly this is
not so simple. I would argue that the Old Believers probably are more
similar to "Counter-Reformation" which was part of the Reformation. Now due
to their beliefs, they had to in varying degrees many had to leave the
offical Orthodox church.
You can argue whatever you want.
Indeed and a schism it was.
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Old_Believers
If you paid any attention to what's written, you'd easily find that I did not object against the word "schism".
So we agree it was a schism which was my point.
You also made "points" about counter-Reformation to which I objected. As for schism, I never argued against it because "Raskol" means just that.
Thank you, for the rest if you wish to provide data, to prove your case we
can proceed
Alex Milman
2017-12-31 17:04:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
Why was there no reformation splitting the Eastern Orthodox Church. Not being facetious, just that a comparison between both church structures and history would be useful. (I presume you don't mean minor heresies and minuscule sects, but something big)
Because there wasn't AN Eastern Orthodox Church?
There were many, each of which was independent of the others.
But have the same doctrine and, what is more important, consider themselves the parts of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
[]
(a)
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
True but also these churches did experience schisms notably with the old
believers,
The old believers were not dogmatically united (there were numerous sects)
Indeed as were many of the players in the "reformation"
The Old Believers hardly can be equated to the Reformation by a simple reason of them being AGAINST the Church reform. Taking into an account that the said reform was strictly about the "rules and regulations" of the Church services and did not involve any structural changes, the comparison is highly questionable.
If you follow the discussion, see (a) above, you will find the claim being
made is that the Orthodox Church did not have schisms well clearly this is
not so simple. I would argue that the Old Believers probably are more
similar to "Counter-Reformation" which was part of the Reformation. Now due
to their beliefs, they had to in varying degrees many had to leave the
offical Orthodox church.
You can argue whatever you want.
Indeed and a schism it was.
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Old_Believers
If you paid any attention to what's written, you'd easily find that I did not object against the word "schism".
So we agree it was a schism which was my point.
You also made "points" about counter-Reformation to which I objected. As for schism, I never argued against it because "Raskol" means just that.
Thank you, for the rest if you wish to provide data, to prove your case we
can proceed
You are confused: it id YOU who made unsubstantiated statements about literacy levels so the proof is up to you (of course, I'd not hold my breath).
SolomonW
2018-01-01 11:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Phil McGregor
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
Why was there no reformation splitting the Eastern Orthodox Church. Not being facetious, just that a comparison between both church structures and history would be useful. (I presume you don't mean minor heresies and minuscule sects, but something big)
Because there wasn't AN Eastern Orthodox Church?
There were many, each of which was independent of the others.
But have the same doctrine and, what is more important, consider themselves the parts of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
[]
(a)
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alex Milman
Post by SolomonW
True but also these churches did experience schisms notably with the old
believers,
The old believers were not dogmatically united (there were numerous sects)
Indeed as were many of the players in the "reformation"
The Old Believers hardly can be equated to the Reformation by a simple reason of them being AGAINST the Church reform. Taking into an account that the said reform was strictly about the "rules and regulations" of the Church services and did not involve any structural changes, the comparison is highly questionable.
If you follow the discussion, see (a) above, you will find the claim being
made is that the Orthodox Church did not have schisms well clearly this is
not so simple. I would argue that the Old Believers probably are more
similar to "Counter-Reformation" which was part of the Reformation. Now due
to their beliefs, they had to in varying degrees many had to leave the
offical Orthodox church.
You can argue whatever you want.
Indeed and a schism it was.
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Old_Believers
If you paid any attention to what's written, you'd easily find that I did not object against the word "schism".
So we agree it was a schism which was my point.
You also made "points" about counter-Reformation to which I objected. As for schism, I never argued against it because "Raskol" means just that.
Thank you, for the rest if you wish to provide data, to prove your case we
can proceed
You are confused: it id YOU who made unsubstantiated statements about literacy levels so the proof is up to you (of course, I'd not hold my breath).
This is what I stated

Message-ID: <1dot373npeqfo$***@40tude.net>

"Printing by making writing more available and cheaper
encouraged literacy."


I am sure it is true.
Post by Alex Milman
The point remains: absence of printing has nothing to do with illiteracy.
I never said absence only less printing.
Alex Milman
2017-12-24 17:25:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
Why was there no reformation splitting the Eastern Orthodox Church. Not being facetious, just that a comparison between both church structures and history would be useful. (I presume you don't mean minor heresies and minuscule sects, but something big)
Interesting question. The only "reformation" in the Russian Orthodox Church was something of a counter-reformation caused by the innovations introduced by Patriarch Nikon (AFAIK, these were not innovations but rather an attempt to bring tradition into a compliance with the Greek Orthodoxy). This caused a lot of steer but other than that things were relatively quiet in all 3 major groups: Orthodox regions of the Ottoman Empire (the Ottomans strongly supported the traditional system and argument could be rather unhealthy), territory of the Muscovite state (as you said, nothing beyond the minor heresies; by the time of the European Reformation Muscovite state was pretty much an absolute monarchy with an effective control of both secular and spiritual affairs which eventually ended up with subordinating all religious affairs to a government official) and the Orthodox territories of the Commonwealth (part of which had been forced to acknowledge supremacy of the Pope, so-called "uniats", and the rest was not well-positioned for any splitting).

So, it is probably safe to say most of the Orthodox area was covered by the strong secular regimes controlling the Orthodox Church and seeing advantages of the "direct chain of command". On the territory of the Commonwealth the Orthodox Church ended up being an underdog looking to Russian support. Both in the Ottoman Empire and Russia the Patriarchs had been generally under control of a secular power (except for Michael Romanov controlled by a strong-willed patriarch who happen to be his father).


OTOH, the Catholic Church was covering a much more diverse territory and, being (at least in theory) an independent entity subordinated to a foreign (for most Catholics) leader , it was creating a potential conflict of interests.
a***@gmail.com
2017-12-25 02:05:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
At the risk of showing one's grandmother on how to suck eggs, have we rad 'Pavame' by Keith Roberts?
You may agree or disagree with its ATL, ("petroleum veto" Bull -snort..) but may be worth checking out.
a425couple
2017-12-26 22:30:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
By whatever means Reformation is avoided. Effects?
I will admit I am a fan of Max Weber, and very much appreciate
his "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism

Another good similar opinion is Kemper Fullerton, in his writing,
"Calvinism and Capitalism"
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1507668?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
" PERHAPS in nothing, not even in scientific outlook, is the contrast
between the Modern Age and the Middle Ages more strik- ing than in
the changed attitude toward money and money- making. In the Middle
Ages trade was frowned upon ...
and the money lender despised.

Another good author on the subject is Ernst Troeltsch who wrote
"The Economic Ethic of Calvinism"
http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/troeltsch.htm
"Calvinism constitutes a second-generation form of the Reformation
that developed a distinctive set of theological convictions about
predestination, the individual, and the “Holy Community”
(Ibid., 590). In the latter theme, Calvinism envisaged a society
“in which God is glorified in all its activity, both sacred and
secular” (Ibid., 591). The city of Geneva heralded a version of
Christianity compatible with new forms of democracy and the first
expressions of modern capitalism. Calvinism was also instrumental
in the rise of the Free Churches and Puritanism. Troeltsch traces
the developments that ultimately result in a movement committed
to breaking any formal union between Church and State.

"Troeltsch is the first major Protestant scholar to devote
serious critical attention to the Baptist Movement and identifies
three characteristics of the ‘Baptist Movement and Protestant Sects
‘ (Ibid., 694-729) in England and America: (1) the separation of
church and state, (2) voluntarism as the form of the church (the
original form of the church according to Troeltsch), and
(3) individual liberty of conscience over against the state."

It is my strong opinion that if Martin Luther had not started
the Reformation (along with ones such as John Calvin and Huldrych
Zwingli) the change of the world to modern times would have been
very noticeably delayed.

If the Catholic Church had remained uncontested and kept it's
monopoly, with it's views on usury and against profit making,
most developments that lead to greatly improved living
standards for all would have been still borne.
Loading...